I’d like to ask the Premier if he’ll be introducing any witnesses
No, Mr. Chairman, I’ll deal with it from here.
General comments. Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Chairman, there were many, many things that I liked in the sessional statement, and you know when I say that, there’s more to follow. I thought a number of things did actually reflect some of our early discussions on our priorities and vision. It was when we got to “maximizing opportunities,” and even there I was doing well. I was totally with the Premier until we reached the statement of blind support that says we can do all this with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. As a biologist in the old days, we always used to look for the one solution, too. And you know what? We never found it. It’s a complex world out there.
I’m particularly concerned with some of the costs associated with this. The first point I want to bring up…. I’ve worked on this issue outside this House, as well, as a non-government person. I’m familiar with the file, so to speak. This blind option, this open-door policy without some very rigorous oversight, is something I don't want to see us subscribing to. One of the major conditions I would want to see here is a carbon-neutral project. The days of having a project of this size, without it being carbon-neutral, are gone. Let’s take the leadership role.
Even before that, there is a lot of discussion to be had. There is some fundamental disregard for our current experience with the diamond industry, some lack of understanding, and I'd like to address that a little bit.
First of all, putting all our eggs in one basket, in the Mackenzie Valley basket, and inviting into our living room the most profitable corporation in the world — ironically, proven as the culprit actively responsible for delaying action on climate change, and one with many other human rights abuses and blemishes — doesn't sit well with me, particularly with a “Come on in and do it to us again” sort of policy.
A profligately rich, multinational corporation that comes to the table demanding subsidies beyond what we already provide, which are major — let’s have some critical thinking here.
We know that this will only accelerate our migrant workers problem and will pipeline resources directly out of the North even faster, as opposed to capturing them here. Our health care cards will go up, and so on, with many costs associated with that. Then, of course, there are the externalized environmental costs that need to be brought in as part of the equation.
Let’s look at our current experience with mega-development in the North so far: again, a rapid doubling, and even tripling, of our greenhouse gas emissions.
People say to me on the street, “The 10 per cent of the iceberg that's above the waterline is doing super-well, but the 90 per cent below….” Although they are reporting increased dollars from diamonds and from residential schools, the real situation is that our social problems are escalating. The number of deaths associated with that, the number of addictions, family breakups and so on, is on the rise.
It’s clearly not helping people across the board, and I don't see this government really rigorously ensuring that the across-the-board benefit will come along with this.
Mr. Chairman, there is another way forward. This 16th Assembly identified quite clearly that our priority is economic diversification. This does not mean going after one basket yet again.
We want food providers, boat builders, artists, renewable energy technicians, doctors, plumbers, lawyers, electricians, accountants, inventors and so on who support our local economies, not something that will end up raising our local costs so that local people will not be able to afford homes and taxes in their own communities.
I'd like to see us put conditions in place that ensure full and true benefits, should we go for things like this, and I don't see that that's been done. We certainly need to demand that it only go forward under carbon-neutral conditions.
I'm going to focus just on this one point, and if I can, Mr. Chairman, I'll wrap it up quickly.
I'd like to turn to page 4 of the Sessional Statement and have us read that in a way that considers the environment as a backpack. In many ways, the work we are doing now is like our elders planning for a hunting trip. We have to pack wisely for the journey. We can load down our packs with everything we would want to have with us. Just think about the environment here. We can load down the environment with everything we want to do, in terms of economic development, but the result would be — and in this case, the result is already — a load that's too heavy to haul. Our environmental systems are breaking down before our very eyes. That weighs us down and slows down our journey.
Choosing what not to take is difficult. I grant that these are difficult economic challenges we face, but I’m looking for innovation. I’m looking for things that really support our local economies and challenge our people instead of having them line up and be automatons and, you know, Exxon’s force once again, like it’s happened throughout the world to little avail for local economies.
Choosing what not to take is difficult and may involve some compromises and hardships. I grant that. But in the end it allows us to make the journey and reach our destination. I am totally convinced we can do this in a much better way. It’s going to take some innovation. It’s going to take some realization that doing the same thing harder is not going to work.
That’s all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Premier Roland, would you like to respond?
Mr. Chairman, I could save my comments ’til Members have had a chance to speak to this, and then I can wrap up at the end — if that’s okay with the Members.
Are we agreed?
Agreed.
General comments. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to comment on the sessional statement. Some of what I’ve got to say today I certainly will be saying more this week and as we go towards the end of session. I think some of it needs to be done as a Members’ Statement or something to that effect or spoken about on the floor here in a formal setting. But I’m going to talk about a few things.
I wanted to start with devolution and resource revenue sharing. And I know the Premier mentions it, actually mentions a Devolution Agreement in his Sessional Statement, but there’s no mention of resource revenue sharing. In the four bullets that he talks about focusing on with the federal government, I think that’s a mistake. I think resource royalty sharing, revenue sharing, is something we can’t lose sight of because, in these tough economic times or tough financial times — economically, things are good, but financially, things are rough — we need to go after whatever revenue streams we can. I’ve said this before; I’ll say it again today: I think we have to look at getting control of what we can.
In the past, Transportation and Health were devolved from the federal government. I think we need to focus our efforts on areas of our operation that could get us the most benefit, that we could derive the most results from. To me, oil and gas is one area we should absolutely focus on here in the next four years and try to get control of that. If we don’t do that, we’ll just keep spinning our tires like the last government did and the government before that and the government before that and the government before that with, you know, not much progress being made. So I think those are certainly some things that we would key on with the federal government.
And the other interesting thing too. When the Premier talks about discussions with the Prime Minister and with Ottawa, he doesn’t mention infrastructure. I mentioned that in my statement today in the questions I had for the Premier, the fact that Nunavut has signed a $242 million deal.
I think the Government of the Northwest Territories…. With the infrastructure deficit facing the Territory and the demands that are out there, that has to be front and centre. In any negotiations with Ottawa, any discussions Ministers are having with Ottawa, we need to make sure that we’re at the table, that we’re going to get the investment dollars from Ottawa accruing to residents here in the Northwest Territories and in the communities, whose demands are being placed upon us. So we need to do that.
The other thing I wanted to touch on and talk about is communication. I know that in the Sessional Statement, the Premier talks about, you know, laying out the approach that’s developed by cabinet and had input from caucus. That’s not entirely true, Mr. Chairman. You know, we all went through this strategic planning exercise together. And Members on this side of the House did not — did not — have an opportunity to, you know, say yea or nay to a $135 million budget reduction exercise over two years. That just didn’t include us.
As well, the Premier talks about these committees of cabinet that are going to look at the reinvestment of dollars over the next few years. That doesn’t include Regular Members. There’s no inclusion of Regular Members in those committees. To me, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to move forward together, if we are going to work together, the sooner that can happen and the more opportunities that that can happen, the better off we’ll all be. And the more the Members on this side of the House will be able to buy in to what it is that cabinet is trying to achieve.
Again, I think you’ll hear more about that from me. I do agree with the overall mindset that the government has in going forward, in trying to…. Because I’ve said it all along: our growth is not sustainable. Our spending isn’t sustainable. And we can’t continue on the path that we’ve been on. Corrections have to be made, and I wish the government well in the reduction exercise and in trying to find out where it is in our organization that we can achieve some reductions.
I often thought that the best approach would be to go out and do the analysis first and the zero-based review, if you wanted to do a couple of departments or three departments a year — go out and do that work, and come back with exactly what you would be reducing. Because in the current scenario, we’re not really sure what’s being put on the table. It’s left up to departments. And again, we don’t have that level of detail on what departments were asked to get. We don’t know what they’ve got yet. So there’s still a lot of work to be done there, Mr. Chairman.
I do look forward to seeing that and to working with the government to achieve the end result: that is, to try to refocus government, to try to get it to operate more efficiently and effectively. I think we can achieve that. Like I said earlier, I think the communication has to be at a level where the Regular Members feel the buy-in and feel some sense of satisfaction that they are being consulted, that they are being included in the government’s plans. To date I just don’t know if that’s happened, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I do want to say to the Premier that his Sessional Statement will be a basis for where we go from here. I do look forward to working with the Premier and cabinet on trying to make the changes that are necessary to ensure the functional operation of the government going forward.
General comments, Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to sort of identify one thing that I thought I was missing. I agree with pretty much everything that Bob and Dave have been saying. I thought the statement was good.
But to me, in listening to it and reading through it again, the one thing that was missing to me was reference and/or conversation around the voluntary sector. You’ve heard me talking about it before; you’ll hear me talking about it again. The voluntary sector, in my opinion, is clearly one area where we can add a significant amount of value to the residents of the Northwest Territories. It was discussed during our strategic planning session. It is part of our strategic plan. But there was limited reference to it in the sessional statement and the value that it can add to the health and wellness of communities.
Overall I liked what he had to say. I agree with much of it. I do agree with Mr. Bromley’s points as well as Mr. Ramsay’s points, but I did feel that there could have been a lot more talk, or at least some talk — you know, a little bit more substance — around the support to the voluntary sector.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a few comments on the Sessional Statement by the Premier. We talk about building our future. One of the issues that I have is the NGOs again. I would like to see them get some multi-year funding and seriously look at having regional treatment centers where there’s some after-care — help for those that are coming back from getting help, trying to beat their addictions.
We talk about housing programs and people that are eligible for them. I hear from constituents that they are both working, they’re both starting to make good money, they’re in public housing, yet they don’t qualify for some of the programs. These are the people that these programs were designed for — to get them out of public housing, to get them to stand on their own two feet — and that’s something we have to have a look at.
We talk about reducing the cost of living. I’ve spoken to it the other day when I spoke about the power rates continuing to go up. It’s affecting the services in Inuvik. I hear of a recreational complex where they are turning the heat down because it’s getting too expensive to heat. You’ve got kids skating around in a cold rink, and one reason that…. The complex was designed for them to enjoy those kinds of facilities without having to worry about dressing for the cold.
We talk about reducing the cost of living, and something we seriously have to have a look at is monitoring how they want to continue to increase their rates. I have my opinions on why I think they do it sometimes. If a “levelized” rate will help reduce the cost to some of the folks in the northern part of the Territories, then it’s something that we may have to look at.
We talk about managing this land. I spoke to it today, on the caribou. I’m concerned with what I’ve been hearing on the condition of our caribou herds. I would like to see that followed up on, and any recommendations that came out of the Caribou Summit in Inuvik, I’d like to see them acted on. This is going to have to be something that, as the Northwest Territories, we’re going to have to do together. Otherwise, I think we’ll be faced with the day — and I think that day will come — where caribou are like the buffalo on the plains, where they’re almost nonexistent. That’s cheating our grandchildren and their children out of something we’ve been able to enjoy.
We talk about maximizing opportunities. The Mackenzie Valley pipeline, in my opinion, will be done right; it will be monitored right. There’s no possible way that the Government of the Northwest Territories, the aboriginal governments and anybody else that is going to monitor this — the development — are going to let them just come in here and just rake over our land. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think we’ve learned our lessons from the past, and I think this one will be done with a lot of scrutiny.
I’ve seen it firsthand, where there is some work going on down the coast, and they have environmental monitors that “don’t take nothin’ from nobody.” Everybody has to follow the rules. I could tell you a couple of stories about some of the stuff that goes on there, but they do monitor well.
There are going to be economic opportunities for all residents. I don’t think it will just be a few residents who will benefit from the business opportunities that come with a pipeline, although I did say the other day that because of the fuel situation in Inuvik and their attitude over the whole thing, it’s almost starting to change the way I’m thinking about the whole Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I hope that attitude they bring to the pipeline, if it ever goes through and they start doing the work.… There has to be a change of attitude there.
This fuel situation in Inuvik, I think, is a good case for the attitude that Esso has been showing. They need to address that we’re not just up here for anybody’s pleasure. We have to live and work here, and we will continue to make sure our Territory is well looked after.
Another thing is bringing workers up from the south. I understand there are some cases where they need to do it. The problem I have is we have a lot of people up in Beaufort-Delta who have worked in industry for a while that I feel are quite skilled. That skill is not being utilized in the mines, and that is something I find quite troubling. When you talk about the mines — and I’ve heard it said before — it’s “your” mines. And then we talk about the gas and the pipeline, and all of a sudden it’s “ours”, “our” gas, “our” pipeline.
We have to have the attitude that those are our mines too. Just because we’re living a couple thousand kilometres away doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be able to benefit from some of the work that goes on up there.
Talking about refocusing all aspects of the government, I believe this exercise that we’re going through now is going to be a good opportunity for us to stand back and have a good look at the programs and the money that’s being spent. I look at a document for contracts $5,000 and over. I see the amount of dollars paid out, and it just blows me away. I see our public servants…. And we have a lot of good ones out there, especially in the front lines in the regions — good, hard-working people. They take all their direction from Yellowknife.
A lot of departments, in my opinion, are top-heavy, and they’re giving direction to the people in the regions. And these are hard working people. There are a lot of knowledgeable people within the government who could do a lot of this work that we continually contract out. I don’t want to see them become nothing more than contract administrators. I think they have the knowledge and capability to do a lot of this work. I have confidence in them, and I think it’s time we utilized them a lot more instead of coming up with an idea, and “let’s go do a study and put it out to tender and do another study.” We’re studied to death up here.
Lastly, Mr. Chair, we talk about resource revenue sharing. The key word is sharing. We share; they don’t. They take. There’s a difference, and as long as we allow them to do it, then they will. We have to get the leadership of the Northwest Territories on the same page and dealing with this issue, because we’re playing right into Ottawa’s hands by always disagreeing with each other. They just continue to take, take, take, take. They give back in transfer payments, but we’re not a welfare state. They give transfer payments, I believe, to each province, so there’s no reason we shouldn’t get ours. They believe that gives them the right to come and help themselves to anything we have up here. I found it quite interesting reading an article: “Ottawa Inviting Bids for Exploration Rights in the Beaufort-Delta.” Ottawa inviting bids.
These are issues that we have to look at. I think as the Northwest Territories, we’ve matured enough as a government. We’re 40 years old now. We should be mature at 40. I think we’re mature enough to make a lot of these decisions ourselves. I think it’s time Ottawa realized that. I think it’s time the government and the aboriginal governments across the Northwest Territories realized that. As long as we continue to disagree, we’re never going to get anywhere. That’s the truth.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to say a few words on the Sessional Statement.
Next on the list I have Ms. Bisaro, Member for Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I’m glad to have this opportunity to address the Premier’s sessional address. Like Mr. Bromley, there was much in here I appreciated and agreed with, but I do have a few comments. One can’t speak without having some comments, of course.
One of the statements with which I particularly appreciated was the Premier’s statement that:
“We want to build a unified, strong and independent territory. A territory that is the master of its own destiny. A territory recognized across Canada as a unique and contributing member of Canada’s federation.”
I totally agree with that. I would hope that’s where this Assembly is going to go.
Another statement that struck me was about seniors and supporting those who volunteer. I don’t quite agree with my colleague Mr. Abernethy. There is a statement about volunteers.
Interjection.
Yeah, one only.
In terms of looking after seniors, I would hope that this reference is particularly geared toward the Territorial Dementia Centre, which is sadly lacking and needed.
In terms of supporting volunteers, one of the reasons I was glad to see it in there is because I am one who is able to take part in both of these: a senior and a volunteer. I’m glad to see them both there, side by side. With volunteers, I sincerely hope that this is referencing, as somebody mentioned earlier, non-government organizations, which are, after all, very much volunteers in the work they do. They provide programs and services on behalf of the Territorial government and do it almost as volunteers. Many of them are run by volunteer boards; they may hire staff, but basically it’s volunteers that run the organizations.
One of the things that wasn’t mentioned for me in Building Our Future, and I think it should be, is aftercare treatment for addictions and other afflictions. We have many of our residents who are treated for an addiction, who maybe go to a treatment centre. They are cleaned up, but then they are basically let loose on our streets and told to survive on their own. I really feel strongly that we need to put in place a program that deals with addictions aftercare.
I was really glad to see the Premier is emphasizing the Mackenzie Valley Highway. I think that one of the best ways we can reduce the cost of living for the communities that are off a highway system is to provide them with that.
One of the things that again we must do is not rely on the G.N.W.T. or on the Territorial government only to provide the funding for a highway. My understanding is that it’s the federal government that is responsible for building new highways. The federal government has been noticeably absent in providing funding for highways over the last while. I certainly hope the Premier, in his discussions with the Prime Minister and with the federal government, will emphasize that we need money for new highways. And we don’t need a pittance; we need a great deal of money, particularly to get the Mackenzie Highway going.
I’m hopeful that in this four-year term, if nothing else, we will at least have started on this project, that we will have broken ground somewhere between here and Norman Wells — beyond, north. That would make me very happy. We could have a grand party if we do that.
I noticed a number of statements about new developments. They concerned me a bit. I believe strongly that we need to have new developments in order to diversify ourselves economically, but I am little bit concerned, as is Mr. Bromley, about the fact that there seems to be an emphasis by the Premier on the pipeline, that it’s going to be the be-all and the save-all. So I was a little bit conflicted with the fact that we’re talking about new developments, but there’s no discussion about the environment and protecting the environment relative to the new developments. Actually, there is one, but it’s not enough for me.
I found there was a lack of emphasis on prevention throughout the statement. I feel there needs to be a greater emphasis on prevention in terms of the environment and the changes to the environment. I didn’t see that in there. And I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on prevention in our infrastructure, in particular. I just think that much of the statement is forward looking, but we also have to go back a bit and think about preventing some of the things that are occurring at this point.
One of the things I feel we need to do, and it comes under “Refocusing Government Priorities.” None of the statement really talks about money. The Premier covered that in his statement the next day. But one of the things I think we need to do — and it goes to prevention, as well — is that we need to spend money to save money. This goes to our strategic investments, hopefully, which are coming forward. In order to reap rewards, for instance, in energy savings, we need to spend some money. We need to invest in, say, putting in low-wattage light bulbs, and that will save us money down the road. That sort of thing I don’t really see in the statement.
In terms of money in general, it’s not addressed, but I have to state that it is absolutely critical for me that we live within our means. We need to budget a specified amount of dollars. We need to then tell our departments and our staff, “These are the dollars you have to work with,” and they cannot spend more than what they’ve been allocated.
I’m finding, through this budget process, that it’s a bit of foreign animal to me. I’m having great difficulty understanding why we establish a budget amount, but four times during the year the departments come back and say, “Well, that’s not really the amount we want to spend; we want to spend some more.”
Most people in this world don’t operate their own household budget that way. You know you have $100 a week to spend. When the $100 cash is gone out of your pocket, you don’t go back and get more. You do without.
We don’t seem to budget that way. I would strongly encourage that we consider establishing a budget with a bottom-line dollar amount and we stick to that. If you’re going to over that budget amount — well, you just don’t. You just don’t spend anymore, and you’re going to have to figure out to survive for the rest of the year.
To sum up, I was glad to see the focus points that the Premier wants to deal with in terms of the federal government. I think if there’s an opportunity to push resource revenue sharing as well as the four that are laid out here, that would be a good thing. But if we simply emphasize the four points that are here and don’t try to do everything, I think that’s also a good thing.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I look forward to the Premier’s comments later on.
Going down the list here, I next have Mr. Jacobson next.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Going over the Sessional Statement from Premier Roland, for myself, I’m in favour of the Mackenzie gas pipelines. I know everybody says it’s a boom-and-bust cycle, but for myself and the people of Nunakput and the Beaufort-Delta, we rely on the oil and gas industry, as the south relies on the diamond mines.
The position I’m coming from is in regard to more jobs for the people. Tuk becoming a deep-sea port is possible — as many as 300 jobs almost year-round for a community of 1,000 people who are affected by the high cost of living, housing issues. Give our people in the Beaufort-Delta a chance to come on stream like Yellowknife has done, and give us the opportunity to go forward with the deep-sea port.
There are so many issues. That’s just a comment I had. And reducing the cost of living for elders. Managing our land. Permafrost is melting. My community of Tuk is reduced to the point of being washed away in any west wind we have now. That’s a real concern to me and has to be looked at again.
My access road — an access road to gravel, but a back door for my community in the hamlet of Tuk, for safety and to get all the necessities. I always say to any of the people I talk to, “If you give me my access road, you’re not going to be hearing too much from me.” Help us, and we’ll help you on a go-forward basis.
Continuing with the response to the Premier’s sessional statement, I’d like to call on Mr. Beaulieu.
I listened to and read the Sessional Statement by the Premier from Wednesday. I have a few comments on it.
I think during the last government there was a lot of effort put into negotiations across the Territory. There was a lot of effort in housing, whether it be the social housing kind or the housing of professionals for market housing. A lot of time was spent on resource development, non-renewable resources and renewable resource development.
I’d like to see our attention shift just slightly, not because all of those things aren’t important, but because this government has to have a vision into the future. If we continue just to spend our billion-some odd dollars and continue on in the way we are continuing on, I think ultimately we will face failing infrastructure and failing programs, and we’ll be suffering the problem of hitting the debt wall.
The way I view this statement and all of the other discussions that we’ve had… The way out of our problems, in my opinion, is to prepare the youth. I find that educating and training our youth, and having youth ready to…. I’m having a little difficulty explaining exactly what I’m trying to say. I guess in layman’s terms, I’m trying to say that if we heal the youth of our Territory, then I think we will heal the entire Territory. The youth is our next generation of people who will be running the Territory. It would be good to have well-educated and healthy youth. In our objectives, our priorities — the priorities of this Assembly — we have to ensure that we have well-educated and healthy people. That’s what we’re trying to achieve. If we focus in on our youth, I feel that will go a long way to solving a lot of issues of dependence on government.
With the way budgets are split up now, I don’t know the exact percentage, but a high percentage of the budget from this Territorial government is being spent on social programs — income support and housing being two that probably should be and can be reduced. A lot of that reduction will occur with training, educating and assisting the youth in preparing for the future so there will not be generations and generations of people in the social envelope, so to speak.
The very important item for me in my riding is the cost of living. A reduction in the cost of living can address some of the issues the people are facing today. When I go back and talk about educating and training and preparing our youth and making sure that the youth have all the things necessary to be well-educated, healthy people, that is something I think this government is going to do for its own future. But currently we do have a real issue of a high cost of living in some of the communities. My communities are affected by that as well.
I think the government is going in this direction, but a reminder that we have to have programs that work for people, not programs that are hamstrung by policies and procedures and that theoretically look like they would be a nice application to help the people of the North. Then once it comes down to the practical application of the programs, many of the programs become hamstrung by policies and procedures, as I indicated just a minute ago.
Infrastructure is important. Right now there is always the fear that this government will hit the debt wall, so we don't want to approve a whole whack of infrastructure that is going to make us do that. I feel that there should be a realignment of the infrastructure priorities by the government. I looked at the 20-year needs assessment, and it’s important to note it is a needs assessment based on certain criteria and not necessarily what's needed on the ground in the various communities.
It’s an opportunity to re-profile our infrastructure with the priorities of this Assembly in mind, and maybe the priorities of this Assembly used as a filter when we're spending infrastructure dollars and when we’re spending O&M dollars, period. But definitely in the focus on improving infrastructure that we have in the Government of the Northwest Territories, we should use our priorities as a filter.
There is always that looming $500-million debt-wall limit. As earlier indicated by one of my colleagues, maybe something could be done with the federal surplus, to move some of the federal surplus and have the federal government take responsibility for new infrastructure so that it won't be a cost to the G.N.W.T.
I feel that responsible, renewable resource development — whether it be non-renewable or renewable resource development — is something that’s important for the economy and for the economy in the Tu Nedhe riding as well.
In conjunction with that and dealing with all of the youth priorities that I would like to see this government put in place, I think that environmental monitoring and training is an area that would fit well with the youth of my riding in the area of the diamond industry and the uranium industry.
If there is more development in those areas…. I’m not indicating that there would be, but if there is, then it would be important that the youth of my riding be trained in the environmental monitoring, assessment or review areas so that the people of the Tu Nedhe riding are taking care of their own land, so to speak.
And I guess, finally, I feel that the government needs to look at the issue of keeping all of our elders in the community for as long as possible, with the understanding that there are costs associated with the way the elders are being kept. Once they go to a point where they do need assistance to continue on existing, then that assistance should be provided in their own hometown.
Time is coming close here.
So I guess that’s about it. I guess, again, I’d like to say that my main points continue to be youth, cost of living and making sure that they have programs that fit the people. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, in regard to the Sessional Statement, I believe there’s a lot of good direction that’s in there. But I think it’s also how you interpret the direction to ensure that we’re all on the same wavelength.
I think it’s important that we, as government, realize that where we’re at today, we went through the same process in the 13th Assembly. And I think from having gone through that time frame, being here today 12 years later, we haven’t really got down to making any tough decisions yet.
I think it’s important to realize that we are going to have to make some tough decisions. There are going to be situations for people who’ll not like the decisions we make, but we do have to make those decisions. I think it’s important that whatever decisions we make, we make the right decisions.
I have to admit here today that in the 13th Assembly we did not make the right decisions. I think because of that, some 12 years later, we’re still paying for those decisions. The one that jumps right out at us is the sale of staff housing throughout the Northwest Territories, and especially in small communities where we’re having problems recruiting people because we don’t have housing for our staff.
I think it’s important also to realize that as governments have grown over the years, we have a very young population in the Northwest Territories. Almost 30 per cent of our population is under the age of 40. So that makes up a large number of our residents who are looking for work, who probably concluded school, have gone off to university, come back and are looking for jobs.
I think we can talk about healthy and well-educated people. But at the end of the day, if we do not have the opportunities, jobs and the ability of these individuals to raise their families, to basically pay for themselves, carry themselves, and maintain a lifestyle that’s comfortable and not that they can’t be able to live in the North, stay in the North, and make the North their home, it’s all for naught.
I think there are have- and have-not communities. As I’ve stated in many of my statements, we do have poverty in the Northwest Territories. It’s the reality of living in small communities where the jobs are limited, the opportunities are limited. But again, we have to find ways to stimulate those communities through the efforts of this government.
I think where we should start is the resources we have around our communities by way of the potential that we have in our forestry industry, our renewable resource industry and also our non-renewable resource industries. More importantly, we have a lot of traditional communities that we can market as traditional communities to other people in Canada and the rest around the world by way of eco-tourism.
Also in regard to many wood products, the thing that really gets me is that we’re spending $30 million dollars a year trying to maintain a forestry resource, and the majority of that money is spent on fighting fires. Now, I think we have to be realistic here. If we’re not going to use it, we’re going to lose it. We cannot continue to spend the amount of money that we spend on fire repression. We’ve got to spend more money in regard to developing that forest product into a product that we can sell either to the Housing Corporation, to other southern vendors or to Northern industry. Use these wood products that are produced in the Northwest Territories.
I think also that it is important to realize that we do have to bite the bullet on devolution. I was the negotiator with the Gwich’in tribal council in 1995 on devolution. We were talking at that time about 51 per cent of the federal resources. We were talking about funding programs and services out of those dollars. And at that time the busiest industries that we had were Norman Wells, the Beaufort Sea, and oil and gas. That wasn’t even including the diamond resources that we have.
I heard a lot of people say that we should negotiate devolution for the sake of negotiating devolution. I think the last offer we got from the federal government — from Mr. Harper, who was up here a year ago — was pathetic. They offered us $20 million a year out of resource revenue sharing, wanting us to take over all the federal responsibilities for $20 million, and yet, right now, they're taking in over $200 million in royalties. That is the state of the federal offer, and I think it’s so pathetic that we should laugh it all the way to the bank.
It’s important to realize that we have to take advantage of the other tax responsibilities that we have control over. I know I've talked about the resource tax, mineral tax, whatever tax you want to call it. We as the Government of the Northwest Territories have those tax abilities right now. We don't have to negotiate with Ottawa. It’s important that we seriously look at that.
My questions earlier today were about trying to find jobs for people in the North, in part of the Northwest Territories, in the mining industry. We can't get the jobs, so let’s get the tax resources. You can keep the jobs; we'll take your taxes. We've got a choice. Sooner or later we have to have some tough love here and get on with making some tough decisions and making the industry realize that if they continue to make the profits that they're making and it’s not remaining in the Northwest Territories, or if it’s all flowing to Ottawa, we've got to do something quickly.
In regard to other infrastructure challenges that we're facing, there have been a lot of discussions around the Deh Cho Bridge. I, for one, support the concept of a P3 idea for bridges, highways and infrastructure that we need built in the Northwest Territories. We as government cannot continue to afford these mega-projects by way of the fiscal problems we're running into.
The only alternative we have is looking at how we can finance programs, and deliver this infrastructure, over 20 years, 30 years or whatnot, because we cannot pull $165 out of the budget right now. We can do it over 30 years or 20 years.
The same thing applies to the proposal that's been thrown out in regard to the Mackenzie Highway project and also connecting our communities. We have to find a way to connect our communities by way of infrastructure, connecting communities such as Tuktoyaktuk, Aklavik and other communities up and down the Mackenzie Valley where, right now, the only way in and out is either by flying or using the winter road connections that we have. We do, at some point, have to make that decision.
We as government have to look at how we can generate other revenues, such as hydro. Look at the possibility of mini-hydro for communities where hydro is at a very high cost. Communities that have the technology now, in regard to mini-hydro projects that are taking place elsewhere around the world.
Also, as government, we have the responsibility to take a fiscal look at what it’s costing us to maintain and operate communities. Someone touched on the idea of looking at a levelized rate system. The system we have in place is not economically viable; it’s not sustainable. At the end of the day, we as government will not be able to afford electrical power to communities if the major users of power pull off our grid system — Northern stores, co-ops, hotels — and they basically go on their own system. We as the Northwest Territories Power Corporation, and the Government of the Northwest Territories, will be pickled.
We as a government have a responsibility to ensure that that we don't find ourselves in that situation. I believe we are going that way because of the new technology that's out there in regard to generating power. It’s a lot cheaper now to basically put your own generators in place, by way of micro-turbines and whatnot, than it was years ago. A lot of these companies that I mentioned are now selling fuel products by way of diesel fuel, gas and whatnot. All it takes is pulling a generator up to the back of the store, plugging it in, and they're off our system. The reality is we're either going to face it or end up paying more to maintain small communities on a system that can't afford to maintain the system right now.
Again, it’s important that we seriously take a close look at that, and also look at alternative ways of generating power.
In regard to the Mackenzie pipeline I have to agree about the subsidizing of big industry. Exxon Mobil, which made $40 billion, does not need the Government of the Northwest Territories to subsidize a pipeline. If anything we should re-visit that decision and make it clear to them that we will change that decision by way of what the real cost is going to be and the benefit to the people of the Northwest Territories for whatever resources and revenues that we can charge to this pipeline.
So with that, Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
I’d like to comment on the Sessional Statement in general. It says a lot about us, Mr. Chair, about facing the cutbacks and doing some reinvestments. We here at the Legislature are faced with these tough decisions. We’re going to work through them the best we can. But back home in the communities, the people are still kind of confused. They’re thinking of the $135 million cut today, so they’re scared for their jobs, basically.
I don’t think our government has done a good job of communicating. I know they’re doing the best they can. A lot the decisions for where we are today are fast-moving. They’re day-to-day decisions that have to be made. We have to take the time and bring our forces up to speed. There are a lot of things on the table, and they’re thinking their jobs will have to be cut. Oh, man, it’s hard to do that, but some of it will have to be done, and in programming as well.
Government has heard from this side of the House, as well. It’s something I’ve been sharing with my constituents. To do across-the-board cuts is not going to work. If you take 10 per cent off five programs, then you have five ineffective programs. It’s far better to assess one of them, take that out and have four good programs that will better serve the people as opposed to five that don’t work.
I’m telling the people that we’re taking the time. Our budget process this particular year is being drawn out. We’re accepting these. Nothing’s cast in stone yet. For the most part, they kind of agree with me, but at the same time they’re still seeing some changes internally at the regional level. They’re thinking, “Oh, my God.” I’m telling them that it’s a moving target. We’re working with government and we’re moving along.
Government has to be there, too, and inform our employees of the savings as we go along. It makes for good management once we let everybody know which way we’re going. And include all departments in targeted reductions. We want to be involved, and I believe employees want to be involved. They’re the ones who are front-line workers. They work with the programs and know which ones need bolstering and which ones do not make sense anymore. There are lots of programs out there that are very old; they’re archaic, I would say. Maybe the purpose doesn’t serve their ends anymore, especially in this new technological age and new way of doing things, Mr. Chair.
There are some other things that are going on. One of the biggest things that affects my riding is the whole housing issue. I’ve had discussions with the Minister Responsible for the Housing Corporation on several occasions. Housing is moving away from helping the people. People just don’t understand that. They don’t know what’s going on. Every time they go to the Housing department to ask for assistance, they say, “Sorry, we can’t help you. You don’t meet this guideline or that criterion.” In the end, our people aren’t being served adequately or served at all.
To me it looks like there’s a very small window. If you don’t make a certain income threshold and the income that you make exceeds the guidelines, that window is very small wherein you can fit to make the guidelines so you can be approved.
The other thing, too, is a lot of our people are in arrears. They just can’t seem to catch up. There again, the Housing Corporation is out of it, but I believe it still has some duty because they are the ones that caused all these arrears. They were more flexible. When the Housing Corporation was running it, it was more flexible. People still wanted the Housing Corporation to run it. In fact, in one of my first Member’s statements, I spoke about housing and how it should be reverted to the Housing Corporation, only because it seemed to be working then.
We’ve changed the program over to the EC&E. It’s must be working a bit there, but I don’t believe it’s fully working. Just last week I was telling Mr. Speaker how, for one lousy thousand dollars, they had a woman and all her family thrown out of a house. It was boarded up, and she wasn’t able to get in there to get her children’s clothing. Has government drifted so far that we stopped helping people? For $1,000, our government could have easily overlooked that. The court costs easily exceed the $1,000. So what are the parameters? What are the limits?
We’re talking about helping our people, how proud we are of our land and our resources and opportunities here. But at the same time we’re throwing out whole families for a lousy thousand-dollar bill. That just doesn’t sit right with me at all. That’s something I believe we should be addressing as well. It says nothing about that in here. But when it says “helping people” — and that’s what I think it is — it’s like, “Okay, you owe $1,000. Let’s work your way around it.” Let’s keep them in there, because it’s going to cost a heck of a lot more than $1,000 to find a new place for the people. In fact, they are split up right now, and that’s something else I have been dealing with.
Another thing I’ve been giving a lot of thought to is that we talk a lot about resource revenue sharing and devolution and I believe it still should be a focus of this government. The Premier says it is, but in Ottawa he said it’s not; there’s no appetite there. At the same time, we’re the government; we’re making decisions. But why are we listening to someone else? Because the feds aren’t listening to us doesn’t mean that we’re not in control. We are in control of our government. People collect here to make decisions, and if the decision is to pursue resource revenue sharing or at least to object, to control, as much of the resource revenues that are leaving our land, I think we should be doing that too. We should be working toward it, not stopping all our efforts. Maybe Ottawa doesn’t want to deal with us, but we should continue with the effort.
Much has been said, as well, over the years about setting up the heritage fund idea. I think I shared that with the Premier as well. At least that stops the bleeding; that stops the flow getting out of here. We set up a heritage fund; we then put the money into the heritage fund. It will sit there and grow until we in the North can get along and play in our sandbox. The federal government has often said that they’re not going to provide any resource revenue or devolution until we get a consensus here in the North. Because we are an evolving, growing political jurisdiction, many aboriginal aspirations and regional independence is happening, and it’s kind of tough.
At the same time I believe we can take the lead. I believe that our government can sell a heritage fund idea. The whole goal is, of course, to stop the flow of our resource revenues out of the North and at least put it in a trust fund where it can grow. There are several examples of that, and I think the best one will be Alaska, where they have a growing fund. They, the government, are able to access some of it — I think it’s 10 per cent a year they can access — but the rest just goes in there, and you need a majority vote to access those funds. I think if we pursue that, it will be a long way from just saying: “The government doesn’t want to deal with us. We’re not going to do anything right now.”
I urge this government, once again, to look at these options and pursue it. I’m sure that this side of the House will give you full support, whatever viable option is there for you to do.
I would just end there, Mr. Chair. I’m very happy to have this opportunity to speak with regard to the sessional paper and to my views of the N.W.T. Thank you.
Next on my list is Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a response to the Premier’s Sessional Statement, which encompasses a broad variety of topics. So I guess people have been pretty much talking about anything that’s a priority to them.
Of course, right now, to me a priority is the issue of our fiscal situation: fiscal responsibility, how we as a government spend our money, how we engage in a consensus government — all Members of this House — in decisions that are made and dialogue that takes place that leads to those decisions.
The Premier is the Finance Minister. The Premier has laid out his vision of a government that’s fiscally responsible and lives within its means and does not have expenditures which exceed the money that we have. That is, I guess, a trademark that we have learned to expect and appreciate about our Finance Minister/Premier from our previous experiences in the government.
So I guess when we look at the aspirations of the 16th Assembly and the things that we would like to see focused attention to in our Territory, it is reasonable to expect that we would also have to take a look at areas where there may be opportunities for strategic reductions as well. I don’t think we can just call them strategic reinvestments; we need to look at strategic reductions. I’m sure Members have spoken about that exercise. I’m very glad to be a part of discussions about this, because I think we do have to be extremely sensitive. We don’t want to be making reductions where those reductions will ultimately hurt the agenda that we’re trying to advance as Members of this Legislative Assembly.
One of the areas that we have not had as much money in, in recent years, is of course, in the area of capital — budgets for capital replacements, new infrastructure. There has been more demand than there has been money for capital projects, which brings me to the issue of the Deh Cho Bridge. I’m interested today to hear the Premier’s responses to some of the questions that were posed about the Deh Cho Bridge.
If you look at the total cost of $160 million, for sure some of that capital investment will be offset by the tolls that will be collected on the commercial traffic that will cross that bridge. That’s a good thing. Well, it doesn’t hurt me — I don’t live in Yellowknife, so it’s not something I’ll be necessarily contributing to. However, as a resident of the Northwest Territories, it is appearing like I will be contributing to the cost of the Deh Cho Bridge in a much more significant way than had ever been anticipated, I believe, in previous governments when the concept of the bridge came up.
So if you add up the $2 million contribution, the price of the ice-road, the price of the ferry operations, the price of the toll administration, now we’re up to about $4.5 million. And there is, as the Premier shared today, no cap on that combination of items being indexed over the next 35 years. So I would say we’re entering into this pretty much with a blank cheque, and we really don’t know what it’s going to cost.
If some other proposals for getting goods to areas such as the diamond mines ever materialized, which they could, the volume of traffic on the highway and utilizing the bridge could be significantly reduced, which could leave the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation in a difficult position in terms of making their payments on this investment in our infrastructure.
The debt will be in their name, at which time I have to project that the government will have to step up and assume and take over the responsibility for that debt financing on that project, since it is a piece of infrastructure which is normally owned by a government. Given our limited ability to borrow and carry debt, our legislative limit of $500 million, it’s difficult for us to finance projects of this magnitude. So I suppose the government of the day saw this Public/Private Partnership as an alternative to the government actually going out and borrowing money or undertaking a project similar to the business case and the plan and the model that’s now being implemented with a private partner.
I guess when you consider that amount of government involvement which may come to pass, it then begs the question: with all the competing interest for capital, is there something else that could have been a worthy project that people in the Northwest Territories could support more than this — something more urgent, something with more benefit, something with more ability to employ people?
You know, one of the dreams that has been out there for decades has been the idea of extending the all-weather road down the Mackenzie Valley. That is something that could have brought employment and economy to many regions of the Northwest Territories. Who’s to say that the Deh Cho Bridge was a higher priority? When we started off with a $60 million piece of infrastructure, it made sense. When it went to $160 million, I think it begged a debate and a question and a dialogue or consultation all over again to see if that is what we wanted to spend our limited capital money on.
I guess, Mr. Chairman, you could quote me today as predicting that this government will be substantively involved in this project in the next 35 years to come. I think the involvement in this project is going to impact on our ability as a government to procure and advance other capital projects. I think this is a project that is going to consume a great deal of this government’s money over the next years. As such, it should have been something that was more thoroughly thought out.
I guess it just should have been approached through a more transparent and accountable process. I think we came to be the sponsors of this capital project through means that were not in keeping with good principles of consensus government and public government. When a piece of legislation is passed that contemplates a $60 million self-financing project and goes to $160 million with not another opportunity to reaffirm the support for that — just pushing, pushing, pushing almost to point of bullying to get this thing going — it really raises a lot of flags and a lot of questions.
I for one, as Mr. Krutko says, am going to be very involved in ensuring that proper checks and balances are put in place that will never allow something like this to happen again. In fact, if there is a way yet to stop it through involving the Auditor General, through the review of the concession agreement that is taking place right now, as we speak…. Time is running out, but I will employ every opportunity available to bring attention to the inconsistencies, the discrepancies and the very inappropriate way in which this project came to be on our books.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no other people on my list, here, so I would like to turn it over to the Premier for any responses.
Mr. Premier.
Mr. Chairman, before I move any responses, I’d like to quote a proverb. “When the prudent man sees danger, he takes refuge; the simple man carries on and suffers for it.” This is something I was reminded of not too long ago. These are wise words to live by.
I’ve heard from Members of the Assembly speaking about what we may have holding for us in the future. It is something that the Sessional Statement was built on: trying to come up with the balance between the needs of the people of the Territory, the vision of the Members of the 16th Legislative Assembly, and what we have for resources. We try to implement as many of those as we can and come up with a balance that touches on some of the more critical areas that we heard Members talk about during the planning stages, the early days in the life of this government. How would we do that?
I will quickly go through what we have heard from Members about some of their concerns. As well, I’d like to thank Members for their comments on the plan, putting this together and the need for some change in the way we see business being done in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Chairman, comments on maximizing opportunities and placing our eggs in one basket is a concern to us. We have seen that too many times in the past. We need to diversify. That is why, in the Sessional Statement, I spoke to the fact that we need to encourage a meeting of the minds, in a sense, of the small entrepreneurs’ spirit in our smaller communities with those who can make it happen in the Northwest Territories, either through our traditional banking systems or what we offer through our government programs.
Definitely we will have changes as we go forward. The discussion of full costing has come up in this Assembly. Also a carbon neutral stance. It is different language for sure, which we haven’t heard in this Assembly too often. It is starting to be heard. It is being said by more and more people in the Territories: we need to take care of the land we live in. We hear some of our elders say, “The land has nurtured us to where we are, and we must now nurture it back to health.” We must look at the way we do business and how we do business. I think that is important for us as we proceed and look at all opportunities that come before us.
Mr. Chairman, we heard a number of Members talking about devolution and resource revenue sharing. I think that is a good point. As I’ve heard from one of the Members, as a result of my meeting with the Prime Minister, my stance had changed. It became known that I was prepared to part with devolution and resource revenue sharing. I need to set the record straight. In my meeting with the Prime Minister, he was supportive of continuing to see devolution and resource revenue sharing proceed.
But shortly after the election, I met with the regional aboriginal leadership here in the Northwest Territories. I met with them to see if there was growing or continued support from the stance of the last government about devolution and resource revenue sharing. I also shared with them the future as it would be if we did not change the way we did business and continued to spend as we had in the past without increasing our revenue sources, and said that would not be affordable. With limited resources, should we continue to put as much effort as we have in the past into this basket and not see results produced?
I think there is still a lot of opportunity there, and we can come up with a solution, a deal, for the Northwest Territories. We have to get a deal that is best for us and that will leave a lasting legacy and benefit for the people of the Territories.
I heard a Member earlier talk about a heritage fund. Mr. Chairman, if we continue at the pace we are and we manage to get a deal and the money started flowing tomorrow, that money would be swallowed up by the existing system. We wouldn’t have a penny to put into a heritage fund. That is how fast we are spending money in the Government of the Northwest Territories. We have to have a serious look at that. I think there is opportunity to do that when we look at over a billion dollars that we spend on O&M dollars. And then another over a hundred-million dollars on our capital infrastructure; $1.2 billion dollars for just under 42,000 people in the Northwest Territories.
We have to ask ourselves: are we getting the best value for those investments? Where we’re not, we have to try to re-focus and re-prioritize where we get the best results. A lot of good ideas have come through this, whether it’s investing in our seniors’ programs, investing in our volunteer organizations. We’ve heard about investing in our alcohol and drug-treatment programs, aftercare for addictions. These are all important and things we should really invest in. But at the pace we’re spending, we won’t be able to invest another dime in making it better.
We’ve heard about the increased growth in the social envelope. At the present pace, we would continue to do that. I think that goes to another form of devolution. When you look at the transfers of the past, Health and Social Services, right now, draws down a large amount of resources. That would go back to the days it was signed.
For example, right now, the department of DIAND caps spending on aboriginal health care at 2 per cent. Right now we’re carrying over five years’ worth of unpaid bills in that area. We’re getting close to $100 million.
We cannot afford another deal like that in the Northwest Territories. At that pace we might as well hand it back to the department of DIAND and say, “Run the Northwest Territories,” because they would try to do it now. I don’t think that’s what the people of the Northwest Territories want.
We’re going to have to make the decisions. When this statement talks about the future and what we can do for the future of the Northwest Territories, I really believe we can get back control, we can get the necessary resources, and we can make a difference in the lives of our children in the Northwest Territories. But that won’t be done unless we get our existing situation under control.
If we hand this over to the future generation now, and spending is at the rate we are without making the changes, it’s like mortgaging our children’s future on a sub-prime mortgage. We know what that means. That means collapse. That is something I don’t think any of us, when we ran, were looking forward to doing.
As for a comment earlier, I heard Mr. Ramsay talk about a plan. We put a plan together in the early days of this government, but the $135 million is a mandatory target. At some point, Mr. Chairman, as we sat down in the Assembly, we talked about the vision and goals of the Assembly. We put some priorities down on the table. I believe you’ve tasked the cabinet, myself — the Premier and Finance minister — my cabinet colleagues, with coming back with a plan that would start to fit those priorities. We have to realize that to invest in those priorities; we’ve got to come up with some dollars. When we talk about devolution, I believe there’s that opportunity there, but it has to be at the right place at the right time and make a difference for us as we proceed.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You can tell I get a little excited about some of this when I talk about the future of what we have in the Northwest Territories.
We also have to recognize the past work of many people across the North. Look at the difference of land claims and self-governance that are in place. At one time all those decisions were made in Ottawa. As a result of land claims, we have co-management boards; we have joint boards with federal and Territorial government and aboriginal people; we have the Mackenzie Environmental Impact Review Board. Decision-making has been brought to the North. That can make a difference that brings people from the Territories to those tables.
At one time I recall making a Member’s statement in this House — many years ago, probably close to the 13th Assembly. At one time, Mr. Chairman, we were the haulers of water and the cutters of wood. Now, if you look across the Territories, aboriginal businesses are parked front and centre, in front of what can happen in the Northwest Territories. We stand to benefit from any development we have. We must be looking toward how we can continue to strengthen our position.
I must remind Members that when we do…. Going back to the devolution resource revenue sharing, according to the federal public accounts, in 2006-2007, the total amount of resource revenue that went into the federal pocket — outside of Norman Wells, because they’ve always said that’s not resource revenues…. We always counted them in, but they said they were outside. If you actually go down the public accounts, the total amount for the Northwest Territories is about $34 million.
Take 50 per cent of that, because that’s what they base equalization on — 50 per cent in, 50 per cent out. We lose 50 per cent through transfer payments; we get $17 million. Is that the deal we want to sign off on?
I don’t think that’s a good deal, Mr. Chairman. We have to put our business case in front of them. We have to work on projects of nationalist interest. The Mackenzie Valley Highway, I believe, can meet the targets of Arctic sovereignty in the North. So I think there are opportunities. We can put forward a business case that can make real partnerships happen with the federal government, ourselves and our aboriginal partners, as well as industry in the Northwest Territories.
We need to continue building on the solid foundation this process will provide. That’s what I would say, Mr. Chairman: through this process we are talking about the future. Not the future four years from now when an election will come. We’re talking about a future ten, 20, 30 years down the road. That’s what our future should be. We shouldn’t be talking about a future tied to an election date. We should be talking about a future that our children will have in the Northwest Territories, that our grandchildren will have in the Northwest Territories. That’s what this exercise is about. I hope, Members, as we work together to continue to build this foundation, that’s the vision we would have: down the path where we will end up, and of the opportunities that are before us.
No doubt there will be challenges, but those challenges can work. I would agree with Members about the opportunities that are before us, but it will come to a balance. The right balance is what we’re going to need. That’s what I would come back to Members with, Mr. Chairman: if we do this right and come up with the right balance, we will be able to look back and say, “We’ve made a positive difference in the lives of those people we represent.” Thank you.
Applause.
Thank you very much, Mr. Premier.
At this time we don’t have any other speakers on the list. What is the wish of committee?
I move we report progress.
Motion carried.
